Compensation is tied to quality. We know that the well-being and expertise of early childhood educators who care for young children have an impact on the quality of services children receive. This has been reemphasized through the data from the @wevisionearlyed initiative.

QRIS & state systems won’t fund educator compensation or professional org accreditation, but fund raters & coaches from private companies. Who’s profiting off state systems? What is their proximity to young children and the profession? Proximity comes with a pay & power penalty.

Excited to be the keynote speaker for Boston University's Institute for Early Childhood Well-Being 2023 Keynote Lecture!

If we are really rethinking QRIS, perhaps we should also be open to questioning its existence. Other industries/professions don’t have QRIS because they are expected and funded to meet their industry-led/profession-defined standards. These standards are the baseline for all.

ECE advocates - Nearly every profession has industry standards. It’s hard to co-create & unite under them, but it’s impossible to deliver consistent quality & demand respect w/out them. Without industry standards, professions (& those they serve) are play-dough for the powerful.

There’s a shortage of truck drivers with CDLs. Let’s hire cyclists since they know how wheels & brakes work. Insane idea, isn’t it?🤯 Just as insane as hiring non-teachers to fill teacher vacancies instead of using policies & public funding to fix the teacher pipeline issues.🙄

QRIS can destabilize the early ed sector it’s funded to support by 1) supplanting early ed standards & codes, 2) paying the rating industry well & educators poorly, 3) giving a few govt staff the most power to define & assess quality, 4) constantly shifting for new trends.

Thank you! “Child care”, “daycare”, and “providers” oversimplify the intellectually, physically, and emotionally complex work that early childhood educators do. These labels also oversimplify child development. Reimagining or fixing “child care” means reframing the language.

Telling early childhood educators to practice “self-care” w/out giving them what they’ve asked for (like planning time, wellness & PD days, compensation & benefits, autonomy & respect) is gaslighting. Ain’t no amount of candles & tea will do what policies & public $ ought to do.

On one hand “child care systems” have limited $$ & can’t pay educators. On the other hand, they duplicate national profession-driven systems, accreditation, certifications & standards…then fund “crosswalks” to show the duplication and fund research that reveal the same gaps.😵‍💫

Family Child Care “providers” are not a monolith. Some want to be unlicensed, others want to be licensed. Some see themselves as educators & want K-12 compensation, others want to “watch kids”. Some want networks/shared services, others view these as pricey & paternalistic.

Is anyone caring for a young child *automatically* an early childhood educator? If yes, then there’s no distinction between a “babysitter” and an early childhood educator. If no, then who is an early childhood educator? Define your profession or accept any definition (or label).

Caring for young children doesn’t automatically make one an early childhood educator. Discomfort making this distinction 1)presents all “childcare” as homogeneous “daycare”, 2)creates the illusion of family choice & equity, 3)weakens the case for early childhood educator $parity.

DC is giving love to the ECEs who pour love into young children. Awesome video to kick off the day. Goosebumps!

The $$ and time spent regulating PD “clock hours” for early childhood educators (ECEs) can be repurposed. ECEs in center & home settings are overly regulated & under-resourced. Most states do not have PD trainer approval systems for elementary schools. Reimagine regulations.